R v Jarryd Lee HAYNE

SENTENCE HER HONOUR: On 21 March this year a jury found Jarryd Lee Hayne guilty of two counts contrary to s 61I Crimes Act 1900 - sexual intercourse without consent. Each was an alternative charge on the aggravated form of the offences. By its verdict the jury rejected the offender's account and accepted the victim's evidence. My directions required this conclusion to return the verdict they did. The fact that the jury did not find the reckless aspect of the 61J offences proved does not detract from the jury's acceptance of the victim's account. The infliction of the injury or that it amounted to actual bodily harm was not in dispute on the aggravated charge, only the offender's state of mind in relation to the infliction of that harm. Counsel in effect submitted that it may have been accidental. Accordingly, the fact that the jury did not find a particular mental state of recklessness proved beyond reasonable doubt in relation to a specific aspect of the charge does not detract from the jury's overall acceptance of the victim's account. I will refer to that later as well. The maximum penalty for the offences of which Hayne was found guilty is 14 years and each carries with it a standard non-parole period of seven years. The Court must take into account these legislative guideposts in framing the sentence after findings of objective seriousness and other considerations personal to the offender. In assessing the objective seriousness of the offences it is necessary to make findings on the facts that were before the Court and on which the jury returned verdicts. I acknowledge that any finding of fact must be to the criminal standard and reasons must be given to explain any finding that is within the parameters of the jury's verdict, but may not be to the offender's favour. In doing so it is necessary to refer briefly to some background information. The victim BA was, in mid-2018, a 26-year-old female from the Newcastle area. In the months before September she initiated contact with the offender through various means including media network app Instagram. This contact continued via Snapchat and text messages. She described them as flirty conversations with some pictorial exchanges. Both she and the offender sent each other some images including personal, but not intimate, images. There was some banter on sexual topics. In September 2018 BA was living with her mother, having been discharged from hospital a few months prior while recuperating from a serious illness. The offender Hayne was a 28-year-old professional rugby league player based in Sydney. On 29 and 30 September 2018 a friend of Hayne was having a bucks weekend in Newcastle. He shared this information with BA. She suggested via text or other communication that she would be amenable to meeting with him while he was in Newcastle. This was also the weekend of the rugby league grand final. Over the course of the weekend and on the night of 30 September the offender drank alcohol for a large part of the days and evenings from the Friday night until the Sunday night. He assessed his state of sobriety as being moderately intoxicated. On the night of 30 September at his friend's bucks party some attendees were watching the NRL grand final which kicked off at 7.20pm. During the evening the offender indicated to those at the party that he had to return to Sydney. A taxi was booked with the requirement that he had to be in Sydney to go to a sponsor's party by midnight. The price agreed upon with the driver was $550. About 7pm the offender sent BA a Snapchat message asking her to come to the party at his mate's house. She declined to do so, suggesting breakfast the next morning. Hayne then sent a message indicating that he would come to her house to see her and asked for her address. She spoke to him and said she was at home with her mother. She then sent a text with her address. The offender departed the party at about 8.45pm during half-time at the rugby. He continued to drink alcohol in the taxi. Shortly after leaving the party the offender told the taxi driver to stop at the victim's address so that he could pick up a bag. It was on the way so the taxi driver agreed to do so without further charge. The offender contacted the victim on the phone and told her that he was on his way. The taxi arrived at her address at about 9.07pm. The offender got out of the car and said to the driver, "I'll be back in a minute." He knocked on the door to her house and I find that BA, the victim, opened the door. I reject the offender's evidence, which was disputed by BA's mother, that she, that is, the mother, opened the door. After opening the door, BA directed him to her room which was the front room of the house. She was wearing stretchy jeans, a bra and a singlet top body suit. She had an obvious eye injury caused by her previous illness and was embarrassed by her appearance. She was observed by the offender to try and hide it. The victim sat on her bed and the accused lay across it. They engaged in small talk. The victim told the offender that her mother was home. After a short time the offender said, "Let's do sing-alongs", and searched on YouTube for songs which he sang along to. As he did so, he leaned towards the victim. She formed the conclusion that he was affected by alcohol. After the offender sang two or three songs a car horn sounded out the front of the house. BA looked out of her bedroom window and saw a taxi parked out in front. She said to Hayne, "Is that your taxi?" He did not respond to her. There was a knock on the door. The victim's mother answered the door this time to the taxi driver. The taxi driver said to her, "Is Jarryd in there? It's been 20 minutes." The taxi driver was concerned about getting to Sydney and back in time for her change of shift. The offender had left his bag in the taxi. He went outside and told the taxi driver that he would be out in 15 minutes and he was still waiting for a bag. This was before 9.30. During this short period the victim told her mother, "He's here for sex. No way I'm going to touch him." The offender walked back into the house about a minute later, walking past the victim's room into the lounge room where her mother was watching either the end of the grand final or the roundup. The offender commented on the results. He then returned to the victim's bedroom and sat on the bed. She was angry that he had a taxi waiting for him and told him so, further telling him, "What do you think is going to happen? There's no way I'm going to touch you." The offender then moved up the bed and leaned in and tried to kiss her. she said, "No", and pulled back. The offender then grabbed her face and pushed her down onto the pillows forcefully. He ignored the fact that she said, "No", and he continued to try to kiss her. She turned her face away. He got up off the bed and walked around to the side of the bed that she was on. He knelt heavily on the bed causing one of the slats to break. He continued to move towards her, leaning over the top of her. She moved back on the bed and said, "No." Hayne moved on top of her again and grabbed her face. She kept saying, "No." He had his hand on her face forcefully trying to turn it towards him. He then forcibly removed her pants, her jeans, by grabbing the waist band and pulling them off her. He did this notwithstanding the fact that she had tried to hold them up and was telling him, "No", and, "No, Jarryd", and said this to him three or four times. She also told the offender, "Stop." She retreated away from him towards the top middle of the bed. Once he had removed her jeans, the offender performed both cunnilingus, (which was count 1, the alternative) and digitally penetrated her, (count 2 alternative), as far as she could tell, almost simultaneously. The offender's actions were forceful and rough. The victim felt numb and froze. She tried to push him away at one point. She felt overwhelmed by the physical disparity and the speed with which the offender assaulted her. She noticed blood on the bed and about that time the offender put his head up. He moved back from her groin area and she saw blood on both of his hands. He noticed this and immediately got up and walked to the bathroom. She knew it was not menstrual blood and said so. She knew she had been injured. The offender proceeded to wash himself and shortly afterwards the victim entered the shower to wash herself. She was experiencing significant pain. In his evidence the offender said that the victim consented to this sexual activity and signified this by assisting him in removing her jeans and giving every indication that she was consenting. His evidence was that she did not say, "No", several times or at all, nor did she signify her lack of consent by trying to avoid his advances. This evidence is specifically rejected. The jury clearly rejected the offender's version of the events. I had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the evidence given and my finding is based on the entirety of the evidence. I was in the same position as the jury to assess it. I do not accept that the offender did not know nor did not hear the victim telling him that she did not want to have sex with him. They were in close proximity in the same room. I do not accept that he was not aware that she was attempting to push him away and trying to physically resist him removing her jeans. I do not accept that he was not aware that she was trying to move away from him on the bed as he was forcing oral and digital sexual intercourse upon her. This evidence is supported by her earlier evidence that she told her mother about her views about sex, the fact that blood patterns on the bed were at the top of the bed and, in addition, her compelling and logical evidence that as well as moving away from him she said, "No", or, "Stop", several times. Her recollection that she froze is consistent with this as, at the time, she was, according to her evidence, physically overwhelmed and that occurred by the time the sexual intercourse had commenced. The reliability and honesty of the victim's evidence was tested at length and in my view her reliability and honesty were not in doubt. She was very clear that she said, "No", several times and further indicated it by actions. No other conclusion can be drawn other than that the offender knew she did not consent. The suggestion at the trial that the offender thought that she meant she did not want penile-vaginal intercourse, but was okay with other forms of sexual activity, therefore that he might have been confused as to this issue is specifically rejected. The fact that the victim did not understand oral sex to be defined at law as intercourse is irrelevant. The fact is she said, "No", to the sexual activity that the offender was forcing upon her, from kissing, to removing her pants, to oral and digital penetration. She moved away and said, "No", or similar, two or three times. I further formally note that his level of intoxication is not a mitigating or helpful matter. This incident only stopped due to the victim's injury which bled profusely. The fact of the injury is not an aggravating matter in any sense, but does give some insight into the roughness or force used in the assault. After this offender washed himself and left shortly afterwards, departing in the taxi which was still waiting outside. The offender was in the home on the second occasion after he spoke with the taxi driver for about ten minutes. During that time he watched TV for a few minutes, was told by the complainant on two distinct occasions that she did not want a sexual connection with him. He ignored her, sexually assaulted her and left. He stopped the sexual assault because he noted the blood. He left soon afterwards. After some days in circumstances detailed in evidence at the trial a complaint was made to police. Ultimately, the offender was arrested, he declined to be interviewed and was charged and released on conditional bail. The first trial in November/December 2020 resulted in no verdict being returned. The second trial resulted in the verdicts above. I now turn to an assessment of objective seriousness. Although the acts of sexual intercourse resulted in injury to the victim, which was not disputed amounted to actual bodily harm, the jury, by their verdict, accepted that the injury was not inflicted recklessly by the offender and therefore accepted that it may have been accidental. This verdict is consistent with my findings above. In considering the objective seriousness of this offence, I have regard to the actions of the offender as I have just described. I have found that the offender was fully aware that the victim was not consenting and went ahead anyway and forced sexual activity on her. His decision to do so in the light of her refusals increases the objective seriousness. The activity was only for a matter of minutes at the most. He stopped not because she said to, but because he noticed the blood. The short duration of the event therefore does not decrease the objective seriousness. He did not stop because he realised what he was doing was wrong, and he has never conceded this. The form of sexual intercourse, that is, of digital and oral penetration, are both invasive, but there is no particular circumstance that makes any form more or less serious than any other. The use of force was such that the victim had no prospect of stopping him physically. He was at least twice her weight, at about 100 kilos at the time, and he was an athlete at the top of his form. She was a person who had recently recovered from a serious illness and weighed 48 kilos. The next matter to consider in assessing the objective seriousness is the consequences of the conduct. The victim impact statement reminds the Court of the serious and long-lasting consequences of a violation of the body of the victim in circumstances such as this. This was an unwanted and uninvited and damaging assault on her person and her sense of privacy. This Court is well aware of the serious and damaging, sometimes long-lasting, effects of an assault such as this and the process required after making a complaint. The victim spoke eloquently of her trauma and I will take it into account. The Court is well aware that such trauma is frequently the result of offences such as this. The legislature has recognised this by mandating significant penalties. The process of trial is mandated by the legislature to ensure that allegations such as this are comprehensively tested in fairness to an accused. It is a process that is currently in existence and one that I acknowledge is often brutal notwithstanding attempts by the Courts to mitigate distress as much as possible by, for example, providing alternative methods of appearing in court and recording of evidence to avoid repetition. The serious consequences for this victim are to be taken into account, but do not amount to a matter of specific aggravation. They are normal consequences of offences such as this. It is not submitted in the context of assessing objective seriousness that there are any issues personal to the offender which would particularly reduce his moral culpability. Some matters relating to his personal circumstances will be considered below. Although his level of intoxication has been commented upon, the offender himself, did not suggest that any level of intoxication affected his presentation that evening, apart from, it is suggested, it may have impact on his usual decision making processes. When considering aggravating or mitigating circumstances, counsel had mentioned and I find the fact the offence was committed in the home of the victim, a circumstance which does make the offending more objectively serious. Lest it be suggested that the victim invited the offender into her home, with sexual activity as a possible outcome, this is a matter that must be addressed. Even if it were so, it does not ameliorate the seriousness of the offence occurring in her home, after she had clearly and firmly told him that she did not want such activity to occur. It was after she said to him she was not going to touch him, that he commenced the assault on her, in the manner described above. She had every right to feel safe from attack in the privacy of her own home. He told her he would visit. He did not tell her that he intended a very short stop and that a taxi would be waiting for the resumption of his trip. He did not tell her that he intended to have sexual intercourse with her during that short stop. When she realised that was his intention, she told him, in no uncertain terms, that she did not want this. Counsel for the offender submits that the offender's evidence does not support premeditation as a sentencing consideration. The Crown did submit that planning is a feature of the offending. However, it must be observed that the offender's evidence on this point is not capable of acceptance. He told the court in the previous trial that on his reckoning, a best case scenario would be sexual activity with her and a worst case was introducing himself. In the circumstances of him deciding to leave the taxi waiting, this cannot be accepted. If he had this in mind that there might simply be an introduction, he would have, on meeting the victim, said words to that effect. That is, "I have a taxi waiting, I have to get to Sydney. I just stopped to introduce myself". If the response was that sex then looked like a possibility, then they could have negotiated what to do about the taxi. This however, did not occur. There is no dispute that the victim did not know that the taxi was waiting until the driver knocked on the door. By that time the offender had been inside for about 20 minutes, plenty of time to introduce himself and tell her what his expectation might be. After the taxi driver told him to hurry up, he returned to the house, watched TV for a few minutes and then engaged in a very quick assault on the victim, as described above. The offender had no regard for the victim's privacy, safety in her home, and acted in the way he did, notwithstanding he was aware she did not consent and signified that lack of consent in different ways. He was intent on having sexual activity with her, whatever she said about it. It is with this attitude by the offender that the offence occurred. This however, is not planning as meant by the Act. There is no evidence that he planned to commit the offence of which he was found guilty. I accept that it was a decision made at the time she said, "No", or she was not going to touch him because she realised he had a taxi waiting. He chose, at that time, to ignore her. Perhaps he had not ever considered, prior to her saying that, that he could be refused. There was no planning, but his attitude did not countenance rejection. Taking all of those factors into account, I assess the offences as being within the mid-range band of objective seriousness, perhaps slightly below. I turn now to his subjective circumstances. It is accepted by the Crown that the offender has no previous convictions for any matter. A 2016 event was mentioned during the sentence proceedings. I have no information about that and I will disregard it. His lack of convictions will entitle him to leniency to some extent and may be a factor taken into account for other matters, to assess his prospect of rehabilitation. Other mitigating matters to be considered are referenced in a number of letters of support. I note there are more than 17 friends and family members who have taken the trouble to write letters of support, setting out the details of how the offender has helped them in the past or has contributed as a friend or family member. Most say that they were aware of the nature of the offences of which he stands for sentence. Most express surprise at his conviction, although Mr Mannah, who gave oral evidence as well, referred obliquely to a period commencing in 2016, when he observed Hayne's behaviour to be sub-optimal in several ways. In addition, some have given details of the offender's background and family life while he was growing up. Their names and the information they have to offer is contained in a significant defence bundle As I noted earlier, I have had access to all of these documents over the past day or so and have read each of them carefully. Other information tendered on behalf of the offender relates to his personal and family circumstances currently. In considering the sentence to be imposed, the court has been asked to take into account this information in several ways. The first issue relates to claimed extracurial punishment. It is submitted that the personal consequence of Mr Hayne's offending behaviour have extended well beyond those ordinarily experienced by persons who commit this type of offence. This case has been, apparently the subject of intense media coverage, much of it, it is submitted, extending beyond the fair and accurate reporting of the case. I have seen some publications handed to me in the sentence proceedings, both from the mainstream media and in re-publications from other platforms. I tend to agree, to some extent, that Mr Hayne's privacy, but more egregiously that of his family, has been grossly and unnecessarily invaded beyond what would be expected, even in a high profile matter. I accept that, to some extent, the offender may have courted media attention for his own purposes in the past, but some of the reporting recently has been sensationalist, inaccurate and not the slightest bit informative. I fail to see how reporting stupid things that people post on social media sites, can be considered newsworthy or even vaguely informative. In addition, I observe an article published in The Australian newspaper on 8 April this year entitled, "Jarryd Hayne's Final Days of Freedom", which showed worryingly in my view, a photograph of the offender playing with his daughter on a beach on the Central Coast. No attempt was made to disguise the identity of the child and her presence was referred to in the article. This is an unnecessarily cruel and abusive intrusion onto the child's privacy. The press do not do themselves or their reputation any favours if they publish in these childish and disrespectful ways. I would hope that reporting from now on is done by a group of responsible adults. The disrespect shown to women and children by sensationalist reporting is corrosive to the community I many ways and must be disapproved of. Of some relevance to the question of extracurial punishment, is the fact which is not in dispute, that shortly prior to being charged with these offences, Hayne says he was on the verge of signing a very lucrative one year contract to play with a football club. When that club became aware of the allegations against him, negotiations were terminated and not further pursued by Hayne. He has not, I am told, played football or any other sport professionally, since. It is submitted that it is extremely unlikely he will do so in the future an d that committing these offences has ended his career. The defence submit that the case of Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21, of the three then Judges of the High Court, two Kirby and Callaghan, were of the view that account might properly be taken of the particular features to which an offender is exposed, as a result of committing an offence, including the additional opprobrium, adverse publicity, public humiliation and personal and social and family stress, which might be suffered. Justice McHugh was not so convinced. He stated there was no doubt it was legitimate to take into account matters that are personal to the offender and that will have consequences on that person's future life. It is submitted that the loss of the offender's profession is a case in point. In contrast however, the Crown points to the sentiment expressed in the decision of the New South Wales Criminal Court of Appeal in Kearsley v R [2017] NSWCCA 28 in 2017. That decision related to an offence similar to this one, where the offender was a highly regarded and senior member of the medical profession and it was in that context that the came into contact with the victim. The offending itself was in different circumstances and that offender's subjective circumstances were entirely different. However, it was claimed on appeal, that insufficient weight had been given to the consequences of conviction, which was loss of employment and reputation. The New South Wales Full Court concurred with the observation that the concept of extracurial punishment which a person may, in an appropriate case, be entitled to some consideration on sentence, "cannot subsist or arise from what might be thought to be a natural consequence of conviction". It is noted in the context of this case that this offender conceded that for any person in his circumstances, the consequence of a conviction for an offence such as this would be the termination of a playing contract, even before there was, what I am told, is a well publicised 2019 no tolerance policy. Further in Kearsley's case it was noted with approval, the observation of Justice Howie in Kenny v R [2010] NSWCCA 6, where the offender would be likely to lose his ability to practice as a solicitor. Justice Howie observed, "My initial reaction is that public humiliation that arises from the commission of an offence should not alone give rise to a mitigation on sentence." And further, he noted, "Clearly, there may be an exceptional case where it reaches such a proportion that it has a physical or psychological effect on the person, so it could be taken into account as additional punishment". He observed some relevant cases, Allpass and King where such evidence was available. He noted however, that any impact (in the case of Kenny) would be slight. I note that in the context of this case, that I do not have any information or evidence of physical or a psychological effect on Mr Hayne personally. I do accept that he has lost a playing contract, but that does seem to be a normal and natural consequence of a conviction for this offence. I have observed the consequences for his family, especially the children, must be horrible, but that is not a detriment to the offender. It is a consequence for others of his offending. I accept that the publicity and humiliation suffered by Hayne may be taken into account in ameliorating the need for specific deterrence, as a sentence for consideration. However, in the context of this case, where the offender still does not accept that he did anything wrong and for reasons best known to himself, cannot accept the decision of the jury, it does not remove that consideration entirely. It is further submitted that this offender's background and upbringing was one of some deprivation and difficulty. That is a matter I must have regard to. It is referred to in some detail in the references and letters from his mother and step-mother. It is not however submitted, that there is a casual link between the offender's background and this offending behaviour, such that his moral culpability is reduced. It is submitted however, that it reflects on his ability to overcome hardship and speaks to his general subjective circumstances. His background, while apparently very difficult at times, was not such to amount as the sort of background of extreme violence and deprivation that could result in any link between his difficulties growing up and his entitled behaviour apposite this young woman, who simply refused to have sexual connection with him. This specific area of his personal behaviour ought be addressed. It will not be overcome by him simply going to church. I accept that the significant family and community support, however, provided by his friends and family, is a good basis for finding that he has every reason to expect that support will continue and that those who help him will help in his prospects of rehabilitation. It may be helpful if some of them, as well as supporting him, have an honest and open conversation with him about his behaviour apposite people in social situations. This offender's lack of acknowledgment that he did anything wrong continues to show that any finding about his prospect of rehabilitation must remain guarded. It may well be that some in custody programs, such as the Denier's Program, may be useful. It is further submitted that an assessment of Hayne's prospects of rehabilitation and the work he does or has done in the community with disadvantage persons, can be viewed through the lens of his own background of childhood disadvantage and projected onto his future prospects of rehabilitation. It is submitted that this gives him a greater understanding of the problems faced by persons with similar backgrounds. This might be the case, however it is difficult to see the relevance of this when considering his rehabilitation prospects in the light of his continued denial that he did anything wrong. However, I accept his various contributions to the community will reinforce his place in the community and assist in his reintegration in the future. It may support a finding of better prospects of rehabilitation. I have evidence that supports the submission that this offender has, over the period of a decade or more, been regularly involved in significant charitable works including donating sporting memorabilia to raise funds for charitable organisations. His charitable work in the community has continued to the present. His recent recommission with a Christian group has seen him generously contribute his time to this group. I accept all of that. I accept the reports from his family that the offender is a loving, caring and responsible father to his children and a contributing member to the wider family. I accept that, apart from this denial, there are many features of his life that would allow for a finding that he has good prospects of rehabilitation. For such a finding to be made, his attitude to sexual activity and consent will have to improve. Hopefully, he will take time to remedy his views. At present it is not acceptable. He shows no remorse and therefore does not accept a need to challenge his attitude to consent and to sex and to women. While he continues to deny the offence and not accept that he behaved badly, his prospect of rehabilitation must only be hopeful. It is further submitted that his current deep engagement in his Christian faith will continue to play an important role in enabling him to re-establish himself as an honourable member of the community, which is, I accept, at the essence of rehabilitation. Pogson's case is quoted by Mr Pontello SC. I accept this but reiterate while he continues to maintain that he did nothing wrong, it is hard to see how his prospects of rehabilitation can be regarded as high. It is hoped that with mature reflection and perhaps assistance, from those who support him, his prospects would improve. On a personal level, it is noted that his wife and two and soon to be three children, will be left without his personal support. It seems however, and is hoped, that they will be adequately cared for, financially and emotionally, through the close-knit family. It is not submitted that the probable hardship of the offender's family is exceptional, justifying a reduction in the penalties to be imposed. It is a matter to be properly taken into account, as part of his general subjective circumstances. In considering the sentence to be imposed, I acknowledge the sentiments in R v May [1999] NSWCCA 40 at [7] Abadee J (Adams J and Spigelman CJ agreeing) observed that: "It is to be remembered and should be remembered that non-consensual sexual intercourse of itself and without additional violence is, nevertheless, an extreme form of violence and one which the community expects will be taken very seriously by the Courts". I have been addressed on a number of the recent CCA sentencing decisions which will guide consideration of my sentence to the extent that those decisions can, only to ensure some consistency in the sentencing approach. In particular, Aliabadi v R [2020] NSWCCA 224 where the applicant was convicted after trial, of two counts of indecent assault and one count of sexual intercourse without consent. The penetration was for a very short period of time, but as in this case, that sentencing judge found that the appellant knew that the victim was not consenting. The sexual intercourse was found to be just below the mid-range and the aggregate sentence imposed upheld. That was a four year and three months imprisonment sentence. In Rahman v R [2020] NSWCCA 13 the applicant entered a guilty plea and was allowed a 25 per cent discount for the early plea. The performance of oral sex on the victim against her will was a Form 1 offence to the penile/ vaginal intercourse offence. The primary offence was assessed as being slightly below the middle of the range by the sentencing judge. There were significant subjective circumstances and remorse as I noted it was a plea of guilty. A six year imprisonment sentence was imposed and an appeal claiming manifest excess was dismissed. Both of these cases have some similarity to the present case in terms of the factual matrix and the objective seriousness. Other cases that I have been referred to and take note of are Cordeiro v R [2019] NSWCCA 308, which was a matter where Justice Harrison, delivering the reasons on sentence, expressly rejected the ground that the applicant's belief that the victim was sexually interested in him would have served to reduce the seriousness of the offending. The appeal against a sentence of three and a half years was dismissed. In Naveed v R [2019] NSWCCA 149, the applicant was convicted after trial of a single count of sexual intercourse without consent. The sentence that was imposed after trial, was nine years with a non-parole period of nearly six and a half years. The issue of family hardship was commented on. The sentence was described as a heavy one, but nevertheless the appeal was dismissed. All of these cases will be considered for comparison and consistency. I do propose to make a finding of special circumstances based on a combination of the combination of the community contribution, his hopeful prospects of rehabilitation, given that community support, his previous good character and the fact that it is his first time in custody. It is acknowledged and accepted by me that terms of imprisonment must only be set where there is no other alternative. It is in effect, conceded by the defence, that there is no other alternative. I formally acknowledge s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act which sets out the purposes of sentencing that each court must take into account when imposing a sentence. It is to ensure, importantly, that the offender is adequately punished for the offence, to prevent crime by deterring specifically, the offender, to which I have already referred and general deterrence, to protect the community from the offender and promote the rehabilitation of the offender, which are matters that often go hand in hand, to make the offender accountable for the things he has committed and denounce his conduct. And finally, to recognise the harm done by the offender to the community. All of these are relevant considerations in this case to a greater or lesser extent. I propose to impose indicative sentences on each matter and to impose an aggregate sentence. There will be notionally only a small aggregation as the offences occurred at nearly the same time. There are however, distinct and separate offences, both serious. In relation to count 1 I propose an indicative sentence of five years and three months and an indicative non-parole period of three years and four months. On Count 2 a similar indicative sentence of five years and three months, with an indicative three year and four month indicative non-parole period. I impose an aggregate sentence therefore, of five years and nine months, with a non-parole period of three years and eight months to commence today and he will be eligible for release on parole on 5 January 2025. He will then serve a balance of two years and one month on parole, which will commence on 6 January 2025 and the total term will expire on 5 February 2027. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 09 June 2021